CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. S.V. Liquor India Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…act that it had received Rs.44.15 crore in cash as share application money was ignored;, that the decision in CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) was wrongly distinguished and the decision c. the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) was distinguishable on facts. 16. It has been pointed out by the Assessees in their written note of submissions before this Court that apart from the fact that all of the corporate shareholders invested in the share capital of the Assessees were Income Tax Assessees who had filed independent confirmations that they had contributed towards th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. S.V. Liquor India Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…act that it had received Rs.44.15 crore in cash as share application money was ignored;, that the decision in CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) was wrongly distinguished and the decision c. the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) was distinguishable on facts. 16. It has been pointed out by the Assessees in their written note of submissions before this Court that apart from the fact that all of the corporate shareholders invested in the share capital of the Assessees were Income Tax Assessees who had filed independent confirmations that they had contributed towards th…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Svp Builders (India) Limited

…t that it had received Rs.44.15 crore in cash as share application money was ignored; that the decision in CIT v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (supra) was wrongly distinguished and the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC) was distinguishable on facts. 16. It has been pointed out by the Assessees in their written note of submissions before this Court that apart from the fact that all of the corporate shareholders invested in the share capital of the Assessees were Income Tax Assessees who had filed independent confirmations that they had contributed to…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

…ct which had been duly complied with and then the shareholders independently confirmed having subscribed to the share capital in Five Vision. 27. Reliance was placed by Mr. Aggarwal on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (decision dated 21st January 2008 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC) 375 of 2008) and decision dated 17th September 2012 of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited [SLP (Civil) CC 15640 of 2012)]. In all the above three decisions the Supreme Court had…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

…ct which had been duly complied with and then the shareholders independently confirmed having subscribed to the share capital in Five Vision. 27. Reliance was placed by Mr. Aggarwal on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (decision dated 21st January 2008 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC) 375 of 2008) and decision dated 17th September 2012 of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited [SLP (Civil) CC 15640 of 2012)]. In all the above three decisions the Supreme Court had…

Commissioner of Income Tax -3 vs. Five Vision Promoters Pvt.Ltd

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

…ct which had been duly complied with and then the shareholders independently confirmed having subscribed to the share capital in Five Vision. 27. Reliance was placed by Mr. Aggarwal on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC), CIT v. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. (decision dated 21st January 2008 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) (CC) 375 of 2008) and decision dated 17th September 2012 of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited [SLP (Civil) CC 15640 of 2012)]. In all the above three decisions the Supreme Court had…

M/S. Ghaziabad Ispat Udyog Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhirshri L.P. Sahu

…rebuttal thereof, the AO was not justified in making addition on claimed loan and interest paid thereupon u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit. The ld. A.R placed on reliance on the following decisions: 1. CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 [SC] 2. CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd [1986] 159 ITR 78 [SC] 3. G.G. Films Vs. ITO [1993] 44 TTJ 644 [Cochin]. 4. Anil Kumar Midha [HUF] Vs. ITO [2006] 100 TTJ 644 [Jodhpur] 5. CIT Vs. Shriram Syal Hydro Power (P) Ltd [2010] 78 CCH 195 [SC] 6. CIT Vs. Goyal Sons Golden State [2012] [Del] 7. Aravali Trading Co. VS. ITO [2008] 220 CTR 622 [Raj…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Express Earth Movers & Eqipment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

…her goes to substantiate the identity of the share applicant and genuineness of the transaction in case of the investor. So far as the issue of creditworthiness of the share subscriber company is concerned, the Hon 'ble S. C. in case of Lovely Exports P. Ltd. 216 CTR 195 has held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus share holders whose names are given to the A 0 then the department is free to proceed in their individual assessment, but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company. On this issue another decision of Delhi High Court in cas…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-III vs. Anshika Consultants Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

…tted that the investment in the appellant company has been made from the realisation of sale of earlier investments held by the companies. In the light of observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 295, the onus on the appellant has been duly discharged. Further, the search had been conducted at the premises of the appellant u/s 132 of the Act and no incriminating documents or other assets were found or seized to indicate that the appellant had in fact routed its own money through these companies. The peculiar facts of the case may 2015:D…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central)-I vs. Arvind Khanna

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

…ITA 180/2015 & Conn. Page 1 of 4 $~5-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: April 15,2015 + ITA 180/2015 & C.M.Nos.4214-15/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(CENTRAL)-I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr.Shikhar Garg and Mr.Mukul Mathur, Advs. versus ARVIND KHANNA ..... Respondent + ITA 181/2015 & C.M.Nos.4216-17/2015 NAVIN KHANNA ..... Respondent + ITA 182/2015 & C.M.Nos.4218-19/2015…

Riddhi Promoters Pvt.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-7

…lied upon CIT vs. P.K.Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and submitted that besides, four High Courts’ decision apply the ruling in Bharat Engineering (supra). 5. As to the statutory requirement of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports 216 ITR 195 stated as follows: “Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the assessing of…

Riddhi Promoters Pvt.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-7

…lied upon CIT vs. P.K.Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and submitted that besides, four High Courts’ decision apply the ruling in Bharat Engineering (supra). 5. As to the statutory requirement of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the Supreme Court in Lovely Exports 216 ITR 195 stated as follows: “Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the assessing of…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/S Jansampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd

In the result, the questions of law stand answered in favour of the

…itions made by the AO, inter alia, relying upon CIT v. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2015:DHC:2354-DB ITA No.525/2014 Page 6 of 24 (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC). The Revenue having preferred appeal (ITA No. 4839/Del/2009), to which the assessee had also filed counter-objection (No. 103/Del/2011), was unsuccessful before ITAT. 11. The ITAT has noted in the impugned order that in the case of re- assessment, the assessee had been asked to show the identity and genuineness of the share applicants…

Tulip Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: Us & Challenges An Order Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Hereafter Referred To As “Itat”) Dated 30.06.2014 In Ita 410/Del/2013. 2. The Assessee Was Subjected To Re-Assessment Proceedings; The Initiation Of Which Has Been Challenged Under Section 147. The Second Ground Urged Is With Respect To The Absence Of Notice Under Section 143 (2) & The Third Is With Respect To The Merits Of Addition Of Rs.4,84,000/-. 3. Briefly, The Facts Are That For Ay 2008-09, The Assessee Had Reported An Income Of Rs.444/-. This Was Processed Under Section 143 (1). Upon An Enquiry & Investigation Report, The Ao Issued Notice Under Section 148, Doubting A Transaction Based Upon The Transfer Of Shares & Purchase By Two Subsequent Transferees I.E. Raghubir Singh & Simranjeet Kaur. 2015:Dhc:1289-Db

…t was not urged in the first instance at all either before the AO or before the CIT (A). 8. So far as the last ground, i.e., the merits as to the addition of Rs.4,84,000/- goes, the basis for introducing Section 68 is understood in CIT v. Lovely Exports, 216 CTR 195 to say that the assessee not only has to establish the identity of the share applicant or investor, as the case may be, but also of the third party. It has to be prima facie established that such third party was credit worthy and the transaction was genuine. Whilst the acquisition of the shares of Galaxy Commercial was not doubted by the AO…